They crack you up … Robert Downey Jr as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson in Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie's take on Conan Doyle's classic English sleuth is not without its problems: his protagonist does not quite fit the action hero mould into which the much-maligned film-maker has squeezed him, and those who find Ritchie's more laddish tendencies distasteful may be dismayed by the movie's predilection for extreme violence. Nevertheless, the critics have just about bought Sherlock Holmes as an intermittently entertaining romp through a stylised Victorian London, thanks mainly to a barnstorming performance by Robert Downey Jr in the title role and its Dan Brown-lite storyline.

This Holmes is up against the villainous Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), an apparently immortal pseudo-fascist necromancer who plans to lead England on a mission to reconquer America and eventually the world – presumably a heinous plan cooked up to speed the pulses of our translatlantic cousins. At the same time he must face up to the loss of his longtime confidant and aide Dr Watson (a much-praised Jude Law), who is about to marry his amour Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly). Meanwhile, Holmes's old flame Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) is also in town and seemingly out to make a fool of our hero.

"There are worse things than loutish, laddish cool, and as a series of poses and stunts, Sherlock Holmes is intermittently diverting," writes the New York Times' AO Scott.

"The visual style – a smoky, greasy, steam-punk rendering of Victorian London, full of soot and guts and bad teeth and period clothes – shows some undeniable flair. And so do the kinetic chases and scrapes that lead us through the city, as Holmes and his pal Watson scramble to unravel a conspiracy so diabolical that it fails to be interesting. Best of all is the banter between Mr Downey and Mr Law, who is looser and more mischievous than he's allowed himself to be in quite some time."

"The less I thought about Sherlock Holmes, the more I liked Sherlock Holmes," writes Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times. "Yet another classic hero has been fed into the f/x mill, emerging as a modern superman. Guy Ritchie's film is filled with sensational sights, over-the-top characters and a desperate struggle atop Tower Bridge, which is still under construction. It's likely to be enjoyed by today's action fans. But block bookings are not likely from the Baker Street Irregulars."

"Ritchie's period London is a sexy, murky and mucky variation on thecapital he's always called home," writes Empire's William Thomas. "Desaturated and seductive, it's a brilliantly realised environment rich with possibility and loaded with landmarks for our heroes to lark about on, right up to a terrific climax on a half-built Tower Bridge ... [This is] a fun, action-packed reintroduction to Conan Doyle's classic characters."

Our own Peter Bradshaw, however, is less willing to brush off Holmes's deficiencies – nor those of its director – so lightly.

"It's a souped-up Victorian crime romp with Holmes and Watson reinvented as wisecracking action heroes, played by Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law – a two-man league of pretty ordinary gentlemen," he writes.

"As ever, Ritchie has some bareknuckle fighting in slow-motion interspersed with very-quick-speeded-up-motion and there's plenty of diddly-diddly Irish folk music in the background. I fear producer Joel Silver may feel like grabbing Ritchie and plunging with him down the Reichenbach Falls."

For me, this was not so much Sherlock Holmes as Sherlock Bond, complete with sneering villain who wants to take over the world, high-octane fight sequences and a theme-park view of 19th-century London that signally failed to convey the dirt and the horror.

I also disagree that Downey Jr saved the day. The actor is one of the most enjoyable presences in current cinema, but here seemed uncomfortablein a role that required a quiet, contained charisma rather than the brash cheeky chappy bravado for which he's known and loved. Furthermore, the storyline felt Hollywoodised from beginning to end: the shifts and turns were all played out in a way we've seen a million times before, complete with expository dialogue and last-minute declarations of affection in the face of imminent death. Ritchie can congratulate himself for having successfully pulled off a movie that pushes all the right studio buttons, and has clearly carved himself an unlikely career beyond his trademark (highly enjoyable) mockney romps. Yet he may be slightly dismayed to discover that he is, to all intents and purposes, the new Brett Ratner.

What's your view of Sherlock Holmes? Did Ritchie's all-action take get your pulse racing? Or did the whole thing have you pining for the more tempered tone and pace maintained by past incarnations of the great detective?